Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The area of the Chaco is an area of great importance for biodiversity in the region
Evidence B:Strategic area of water conservation and associated biodiversity. Relevant in a South American reservation. Important cultural habitat
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The High deterioration of the natural forest, intends to work in fragmented forests without low carbon reserve.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: This proposal is presented by the autonomous government Guarani Charagua Iyambae, being the first municipality (Charagua) to implement indigenous autonomy in Bolivia in 2015.
Evidence B:There are recent legal basis for tenure rights and governments are in the process of joint IPLC
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: In addition to the importance of Charagua for Guarani, this area includes two conservation areas and a protected national park
Evidence B:Promotes relations native cosmovision with natural systems as the basis of sustainability
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: As the whole area of the Gran Chaco, Bolivia this area experienced significant pressures that will lead to imminent loss of biodiversity not to intervene with initiatives such as this project
Evidence B:The high incidence of poverty, threatens to accelerated deterioration of ecosystems for subsistence, pressured by traffic of land for agriculture, livestock. Threat to water sources
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The status of autonomous indigenous government and the existing legal framework in Bolivia, contribute significantly to the promotion of indigenous governance widely
Evidence B:Recognition of autonomy and governance in managing the conservation and sustainable use
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: The main executor is an indigenous local government, with precise links at government level
Evidence B:It is not clear cooperation mechanism national or subnational government. joint actions is evident, but not a solid support framework
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Guarani organized communities have a long history of conservation in the territory
Evidence B:There is clearly no explicit effort, participation form own government stands. Especially in the creation of an AP
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Evidence provided is more than enough. There are technical assistance projects for water conservation and management of natural land and resources.
Evidence B:Lack of clarity of the relationship of the aforementioned project on the synergy with the project, a connection is inferred in ecosystem management actions from communities
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: careful organization of objectives and actions described results.
Evidence B:It is not clear how autonomy and territorial management is consolidated from the project, however the goals credited to improve driving conditions biodiversity
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The inclusion of actions to adapt to climate change and disaster prevention, is notable in this proposal. This is an area of action rarely frequent in this type of project.
Evidence B:Clearly the objectives and actions, there are limitations of the gender approach and extensive relationship with the IPLC own systems of land management and customary use of natural resources and traditional knowledge.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: an orderly organization of actions and goals to achieve is found.
Evidence B:There ambitions and expectations of high value for the life of the project, however the crisis and threat of natural resources is limitedly clear as faced with the project, especially the dynamics of change of use of soil
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: It balance between financing, actions and time the project is observed.
Evidence B:Extensive descriptions of actions by objective, strategy and relationship integration with traditional systems IPLC is slightly visible
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The information presented exceeds USD 1 million per project.
Evidence B:A unique project is currently in the area, integration of local government institutions is presumed, but the binding framework is not explicit
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The area considered over 4 million hectares
Evidence B:Impact on 3 AP covering more than 1 M has estimated.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Including the emergence of new leaderships Guarani and particularly by women, it is a very significant contribution as a result of the project.
Evidence B:Indicators are explicit in sustainable development, specifically related to the cultural aspects of the IPLC are unclear.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The position of indigenous autonomous municipal government provides a unique strength to the sustainability of the project.
Evidence B:Clearly the integration of self-government in the medium term is limited to demonstrate the social changes of IPLC in sustainability management
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The project presents a detailed description of the contributions to the ODS.
Evidence B:The project identifies challenges in national policies, but limited in terms of specific goals.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The project describes an approach suitable gender, especially regarding the role of women in land tenure and sustainable productive activities they develop.
Evidence B:There is no intension integration of focus, lack of clarity of the strategy or mechanism is unknown gender gaps
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: This project can contribute significantly to the cause of indigenous governance in other areas, in conservation of biodiversity.
Evidence B:There is local integration in the management of biodiversity and the environment, with local participation and empowerment
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: There is sufficient evidence in the EoI about the characteristics of the relationship between the Government Autonomous Indigenous and Peasant Charagua Iyambae Natura Bolivia Foundation, a relationship that appears well founded.
Evidence B:Is a combined proposal, the roles of the IPLC is not very explicit.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The condition of Indigenous Campesino Self-Government Charagua Iyambae is the result of a long process of leadership in Bolivia. Remember that this is the first indigenous autonomous government established in Bolivia under the current rules, in a process initiated in 2009 by the Guarani, and culminated in 2015.
Evidence B:Gestate organizations longstanding processes, how they integrate the IPLC is unclear, especially in governance
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: It presents clear evidence of multiple links with both local community organizations such as government departments and international organizations.
Evidence B:There is integration of IPLC, the roles are not clear, other organizations identify key
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The proposing organization has executed or has been linked to at the least 3 GEF projects.
Evidence B:Demonstrate ability, organization, it is not clear on the goals of the proposed project.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The evidence is sufficient.
Evidence B:They have superior ability delicacy resources 1M
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: GEF projects have been implemented and other international.
Evidence B:mentioned antecedent linked to trust policies, with no clarification referred to standards GEF